Share on Social Media:

End of ‘Net Neutrality’

The sky has not fallen. Armageddon has passed evidently passed us by. We have not seen the Great Tribulation that was expected to fall on us on June 11, with the official end of the FCC’s Title II ‘net neutrality‘ internet rules.

Image result for net neutrality images

Without the regulations, we were told, the web wouldn’t work properly. Disaster would follow: fire and brimstone, floods, earthquakes, mass extinction, dogs and cats living together- real Wrath of God stuff. At the very least, we’d see our content requests blocked or slowed, with frustratingly long buffering of music and video. Of our afflictions there would be no end.

Why hasn’t the sky fallen?

So far, none of the dire predictions has been realized. We haven’t seen ISPs rushing to raise rates, block or slow content, or otherwise restrict internet access.

In fact, most ISPs have announced plans to develop advanced 5G systems. They are investing massive amounts in creation of new networks and expansion of existing ones. These investments had been retarded under the Title II web rules, because ISPs did not want to risk capital in an uncertain regulatory climate. The FCC had too much discretion, and ISPs could not be sure how it would rule from one case to another. With the end of the Title II framework, ISPs are more certain about what the law allows.

What happens now?

Does this mean the industry is finally at peace? Will the advocates of the restricitve web rules admit that they could have been wrong? Don’t bet on it. Though the legal battle over Title II is settled- for now- the political quarrel is nowhere near its end.

The industry is sharply divided over the issue. Google and Facebook have argued strenuously for retaining the Title II rules for ISPs, while Verizon and AT&T called for their abolition.

Several states, and some municipal governments, have said that they will enact ‘net neutrality’ rules on their own.  This effort has encountered stiff resistance. Roslyn Slayton is a scholar for the American Enterprise Institute who served on Mr. Trump’s transition team. Slayton said to CNN, “It’s patently illegal for the states to make their own internet policy.”

The Trump Administration is likely to join some of the larger ISPs in lawsuits against state attempts to regulate the web.

UPDATE:  We’ve received word that an effort to enact a state ‘net neutrality’ law has stalled in the California legislature.

What does it all mean anyway?

‘Net neutrality’ is the principle that an internet service provider (ISP) should treat all data equally. An ISP should not block, slow, or charge extra for any data based on the user, application, website, platform, connected equipment, or means of communication.

The Title II web rules are extensions of the 1934 Telecommunications Act. Under its terms, an ISP is to be regulated like as a ‘common carrier’, like a land line telephone exchange.

 

(For the most reliable internet connection, talk to Satellite Country. We can help.)

 

Share on Social Media:

‘Net Neutrality’: Is It Doomed?

For the internet industry, the regulatory climate may be facing a dramatic shakeup. The Federal Communications Commission has scheduled a December 14 vote on possible repeal of Title II web regulations. These rules are meant to promote what is known as ‘net neutrality’.

Image result for net neutrality images

‘Net neutrality’ is the concept that all data on the web should be treated alike. Internet service providers (ISP) should not discriminate by platform, content, website, application, or user. An ISP would not be allowed to block, throttle (slow down), or charge extra for access to specific websites or online content.

What fed the demand for ‘net neutrality’?

The matter became a live political issue in 2004, when Comcast throttled uploads of peer-to-peer file sharing apps such as BitTorrent. Despite public protest, Comcast did not stop the throttling until the FCC ordered it to do so. AT&T, Verizon, and other ISPs were also accused of blocking or throttling specific content. Some were accused of giving favorable treatment to data from corporate partners, including TV networks.

In 2014, the FCC received more than 3.7 million complaints about blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. The following year, the commission ruled that the internet is a telecommunications service. An ISP, then, is a ‘common carrier’ subject to regulation under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act. The web would be regulated like any public utility.

Resistance to the New Rules

The Title II rules faced fierce criticism from the cable and telecom industries. Some claimed the rules would inhibit investment in internet systems. This would delay or prevent improvement in equipment or networks. In any case, the leading ISPs said, the rules went far beyond the FCC’s legal mandate.

Ajit Pai, the current FCC chairman, said that the current ‘net neutrality’ rules discourage innovation. Less innovation, he said, means less competition. This in in turn, he said, keeps prices high.

Pai says repeal of the Title II internet rules will foster competition, make broadband more widely available, and bring prices down. His critics say the move would only make the larger ISPs more dominant. The largest cable and telecom systems would enjoy near-monopolies on the flow of information.

Who’s right? We may find out after December 14.

 

(For the strongest internet connection, talk to us. We can help.)

 

 

Share on Social Media:

HURRICANE HARVEY HAMMERS CABLE SYSTEMS

Severe storms are no fun for any of us. In addition to the obvious hardships they bring, they can knock cable, telecom, and wireless communication systems out of service for weeks or even months on end.

Image result for hurricane harvey images

How has the Houston area fared?

Hurricane Harvey was especially brutal. Though other hurricanes have packed higher wind speeds, Harvey caused more damage because it parked over southeast Texas for several days. While stalled, it dumped more than fifty inches of rain on the area in only four days. This is a new record. It’s even more than famously-wet Seattle got in all of 2016.

Harvey’s effect on cable systems has been catastrophic.

On August 28, two days after Hurricane Harvey made landfall, Comcast said it would suspend operations in the affected area. Comcast is the largest cable firm in the U.S.

On September 6, the FCC reported that on Friday, September 1, six days after Harvey’s landfall, more than 270,000 cable TV and internet in the affected area subscribers still lacked service. In addition, two TV stations and nine radio stations were still off the air.

It’s possible that the FCC understated the service outages. Some subscribers have yet to report service loss, since they face more pressing concerns.

What does the future hold?

John Stankey, CEO of the AT&T Entertainment Group, ratified the FCC’s grim assessment. Speaking at a media conference in Las Vegas, he said his company expects a spike in ‘cord-cutting’ figures for the third quarter. Much of this- though not all- he attributes to Hurricane Harvey. Comparing it to Hurricane Katrina (2005), Stankey said that full restoration of all communication networks will be expensive, requiring a “multi-year commitment”.

At the same media conference, a Comcast spokesman said his company expects to lose 100,000 to 150,000 subscribers in the third quarter. Much of this loss he attributes to Hurricane Harvey.

Expect several months to pass, then, before all cable services in the Houston area are fully restored.

What can you do?

Wherever you live, you have no guarantee that you won’t suffer extreme weather or other natural disasters. But there are a few steps by which you can protect yourself.

For reliable TV and internet service, consider a satellite system. Severe weather can affect it, but is unlikely to cause outages lasting days, weeks, or months. Usually, your service will return once the storm passes.

 

(For the HughesNet service that’s meets your needs, contact Satellite Country. Talk to us. We can help.)

Share on Social Media:

NIELSEN RATINGS REVAMPED

Image result for nielsen families images

Nielsen has been a TV god. From the dawn of the TV industry, the Nielsen Ratings were its gold standard of performance measures. They served electronic media whose programming and personnel decisions had previously been combinations of guesswork and voodoo. For an industry rife with superstition, the Nielsen system was the closest thing to science.

Like the Word of God from Mt. Sinai, the system’s judgements were absolute- and beyond appeal. Actors, talk show hosts, programming directors, and ad buyers lived or died by them. The ratings conferred wealth and fame for some; career death, financial ruin, and highly dreaded obscurity on others. Nobody in TV or advertising could afford to ignore the ratings.

The system is a dramatic improvement on all that came before. It’s far from perfect, though. Survey samples are skewed. In part, this is because participation is voluntary, and participants know they’re being surveyed. And the samples have always been small. In the beginning, the sample was only a few thousand households. Though Nielsen enlarges it once in a while, as late as November 2015 it was only 25, 000. It is now about 100,000.

The system worked well enough when only four networks (including PBS) competed for viewers. It became less reliable with cable channels multiplying, and the need for precision was greater than ever.

Other developments undermined the rating system. Viewers often ‘time-shifted’ their viewing with DVRs. With ever more viewers watching on tablets and smart phones, many were beyond the reach of the Nielsen system. TV also has to compete with internet browsers. The browsers track user interests and buying habits- and adapt targeted ads for them. Legacy TV systems couldn’t keep up.

The Nielsen Rating System was in danger of becoming obsolete. To survive, it needed to be revamped– dramatically and quickly.

Last month, AT&T stepped into the matter. The telecom forged a multi-year agreement with Nielsen to provide anonymous viewer data from DirecTV and U-Verse receivers and streaming apps. The new system will provide instantaneous data from more than 25 million subscribers, so it will be many times more accurate than the previous one.

A few months ago, Dish Network signed a similar contract with Nielsen.

For the first time, all concerned will truly understand what viewers want to watch. The difference will be especially dramatic for data from rural and less populous suburban areas, for which data from the original Nielsen system was especially erratic. It will be easier to track the performance of regional or specialty channels that currently attract limited audiences. And the new system will more easily detect when a specialty channel has potential to break into the mainstream.

(For TV or internet service, you need a reliable connection. To find the one that works best for you, talk to us. We can help.)

Share on Social Media:

SOCIAL MEDIA AND PRIVACY

If you spend much time online, your privacy is unsafe unless you take steps to protect it. What may be even more dismaying is that the rules governing online privacy are inconsistent. They inhibit only a few of the worst potential violators, leaving others free to vacuum up as much of your personal data as their technologies allow.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission unwittingly underscored this inconsistency. Tom Wheeler, the FCC Chairman, announced a proposal for imposing strict new privacy rules on internet service providers.  From the consumer’s point of view, the proposal was a huge step forward, as ISPs would have to protect personal information, report breaches, and obtain consumer consent for personal data collection. Consumers would have to ‘opt in’ to allow collection of personal information. The new regulations would make it more difficult to use consumer data for targeted advertising.

Unfortunately, the new rules would exempt Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other browsers and social media. The American Civil Liberties Union expressed disappointment with the proposed new rules, and other consumer groups gave them only qualified endorsement. Some ISPs panned the proposal. AT&T, for example, called it discriminatory. The telecom giant objected that broadband providers would be held to stricter standards than other online companies.

Since the FCC won’t do much to protect you, you have to protect yourself when using social media. Consider using an ad blocker. Carefully review the privacy policy of any social website you visit.

You need to be vigilant to guard your privacy on any social medium. Some websites change privacy settings frequently, without notifying users. Facebook is especially notorious for this.

If you find that your privacy settings have been changed without your consent, change them back. Then send a complaint to the site administrators. This will not guarantee that the site’s policies will change, but it may help. If enough users complain, administrators may finally pay attention.

Above all else, remain alert. The best safeguard for your privacy is your own common sense.

(For the internet service that meets your needs, talk to us.)